395 
portion of creation in which the smallest amount of adaptation is shown, 
and 1 think it rather unwise to put forth the weakest proofs of our argument, 
ft we can prove adaptation, which we most certainly can, I hold it to be 
a great error to concede, as some theologians are prepared to concede, that 
we cannot prove the being of a God from the adaptation of the universe. 
The one great argument by which common sense will infer the existence 
of a Deity, is the adaptation of the universe. If this does not prove the 
existence of intelligence, other arguments will fail to persuade the great 
mass of mankind ; and therefore I maintain that we are bound to show, 
and to establish distinctly, the fact that adaptation and order -the adapta- 
tions of the universe and the order of the universe— do unquestionably prove 
the presence of intelligence, and that the assertion of materialists, that this 
is nothing better than anthropomorphism, is beside the mark. The plain 
fact is, that no scientific man can express himself except in anthropomorphic 
terms ; such are all the terms of language. To except, therefore, against 
the use of such terms, as is constantly done, is absurd. When I argue 
from the fact of adaptation to the presence of intelligence, I am told that 
that only proves the presence of human intelligence. I say it does not • 
it proves the presence of intelligence generally, and our minds are so 
constituted that I am sure we cannot believe otherwise. If we see an 
exceedingly complicated piece of mechanism of any kind— take the human 
body for instance— we cannot believe that it has resulted from the con- 
currence of a set of blind forces. Blind forces produce nothing but confusion 
But as I have implied already, the real strength of the argument can only 
be found m the various structures which possess life. I allow that the 
construction of the heavens proves adaptation, but in a very inferior degree 
the geological formations. They are not powerful enough to do more than 
bring up the rear of the argument, and ought not to be placed in the fore- 
front. ^ It is very undesirable to place in the forefront the weakest points 
instead of the strongest : let us always put the strongest first. The thing 
we want, in these days, is to have the force of the adaptation argument 
thoroughly discussed and most clearly set forth. It does not do merely 
to quote instances of adaptation, which are in numbers numberless, but the 
point is, Does adaptation prove intelligence ? Many philosophers say it 
does not ; that it can result from other causes than intelligence ; and the real 
question is, Are we right or they, when we see these adaptations and affirm 
that they prove the presence of a superintending and intelligent mind ? 
(Cheers.) 
Mr. W. Melmoth WALTERs.-The object, I take it, of this paper, is rather 
to supplement the stronger argument of the evidence of adaptation on the 
lines of Geology. It is quite true that in that particular line we do not see 
what the design may be ; but the argument, I take it, is, that the arrange- 
ment of minerals in particular directions where we should not expect to find 
